[ticker-dev] Timeout attribute

[Phillips, Matthew]

So, to get some closure here, how about I post my +1 for the "org.tickertape.message: 3001" proposal? Any dissenters?

Matthew.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillips, Matthew [mailto:Matthew.Phillips at dsto.defence.gov.au]
> Sent: Friday, 26 March 2004 6:37 PM
> To: ticker-dev at tickertape.org
> Subject: RE: [ticker-dev] Timeout attribute 
> 
> 
> [David]
> "
> If we could change the field name, and consequently keep the version
> number at 3000, that might be a compromise I'd be interested in,
> although it seems like some additional complexity in the apps?
> 
>   Ian> Perhaps we should take this as a lesson that in future we
>   Ian> shouldn't have clients implemementing a draft claim to
>   Ian> implement the final standard? Although with a purely numeric
>   Ian> version that might get a bit ugly.
> 
> I think the biggest lesson is "don't let draft protocols drag out for
> 3 years"  :-/
> 
> But, more concretely, i think you're right -- having draft protocols
> using the final spec version number is asking for trouble.
> 
> I can't think of a simple solution though .. 2999 seems a bit broken.
> Why do we have 1000 micro versions again?
> 
> Maybe 3.0final should be 3010 ?
> "
> 
> It's a bit arbitrary either way: there doesn't seem much 
> reason to prefer 3010 over 3100 for example. If the original 
> idea was that major numbers => complete incompatibility =>, 
> minor => backwards compatibility, then technically this 
> change should make the version 4000 - but I don't even want 
> to think about going there :/ I'm happy with any combination, 
> but 3001 seems the "least illogical" ;)
> 
> Matt.
> _______________________________________________
> ticker-dev mailing list
> ticker-dev at tickertape.org
> http://www.tickertape.org/mailman/listinfo/ticker-dev
>